All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
54:53
20120501_Tue_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm Aaron Dykes.
This is the InfoWars Nightly News.
It is, of course, May Day, 2012.
Coming up, we have an exclusive Ron Paul speech in its entirety.
But first, the news, of course, for this May 1st, Socialist-Communist Historically Illuminati-Connected Day.
We have reports that Obama has launched a new campaign slogan based in Marxism.
The Obama campaign apparently didn't look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, Forward, a word with long and rich association with European Marxism.
That's from the Washington Times about the new Obama slogan and its ties to socialism and Marxism.
It comes from the progressive tradition, of course, as they just mentioned.
There are words for it in German.
As well as Russian and there's been a number of overtly socialist and communist publications along those lines.
It's part of their new seven minute video which included a title card with the Obama O logo and the word forward.
Just another nice little treat on the day where Obama is celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden and more.
Now, behind the scenes of the century of radical Marxism and communism, progressivism, fascism, Nazism, and other collectivist systems are the Puppet Masters.
They will meet again at Bilderberg this year again in Chantilly, Virginia.
And Alex has called on people to occupy the Bilderberg meeting, so join him if you can out in Virginia, right outside of Washington, D.C., coming up in just a few weeks.
Meanwhile, the FBI has arrested, quote, anarchists in another concocted bomb plot, this time in Cleveland.
Curt Nemo has the report.
Authorities in Cleveland, Ohio, have arrested five self-described anarchists in an alleged plot to blow up the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, Brecksville Station, by remote detonation using C4 explosives.
Yet again, the explosives were inoperable because the entire plot was controlled by FBI informants Who just set up a bunch of dumb patsies once again.
The case we've seen over and over again.
RT, among other publications, has exposed the fact that of dozens of terror plots that allegedly were planned and partially executed inside the United States since 2001, almost all were entirely contrived and started by the FBI itself.
Of course, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was famously an FBI informant plot where they gave them the bomb-making materials One such informant is on tape expressing his doubt as other FBI officials encourage him to move forward and set up the Patsy's and he of course questions why they're using real explosives.
In another phase of concocted infiltrations, we have Cass Sunstein, who wrote the paper, Conspiracy Theorists, calling on governments to cognitively infiltrate extremist groups, including a number of online entities exposing false and dangerous conspiracy theories, just like including a number of online entities exposing false and dangerous conspiracy theories, just like us right here at Anyway, now Luke Radowski of We Are Change has confronted Cass Sunstein, one of those behind-the-scenes guys who's not used to even talking to the public.
And when Luke confronts him about why he's called for discrediting conspiracy theorists, for banning those who say sunlight is good and healthy, and those who don't believe in climate change and that kind of thing, Well, Sunstein was just speechless.
He was babbling.
He was... I don't remember even saying that.
His handlers tried to keep Luke away from him, but Luke just kept asking the questions.
That, of course, everyone should ask because Cass Sunstein, who is currently Obama's information czar, is a possible Supreme Court appointee.
He was being considered on the short list at the time that Obama went on to choose Sotomayor and later Kagan.
I'm sure Sunstein has a bright future ahead of him in attempting to ban the Second Amendment.
Yes, he doesn't believe the Supreme Court has ever upheld individual ownership of firearms.
He wants to rewrite the free speech rules under the First Amendment and has written a number of books on that, including Democracy and the Problems of Free Speech.
And of course, he's been the author of Nudge, a book on social engineering people to make healthy and rational decisions under good government.
He's even claimed for an official mandatory celebration Let's go to that confrontation clip now.
Here's someone who really deserves to be asked questions about the dangerous stuff he is espousing.
My name is Bill DeBerg from Brooklyn College.
And I know you wrote many articles, but I think the most telling one about you is the 2008 one called Conspiracy Theories.
Where you openly advocated government agents infiltrate activist groups of 9-11 truth and also stifle dissent online.
I was wondering why do you think it's the government's job or why do you think the government should go after family members who have questions about 9-11, responders who are lied to about the air, survivors whose testimony commits, and also government whistleblowers that were gagged.
Because they released information that contradicts the official story.
Why do you think the government should do that?
I think, as Ricky said, I've written hundreds of articles and I remember some and not others.
That one I don't remember very well.
I hope I didn't say that.
But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from The vast majority of my academic writing, including that one, so... I know that I'm just asking because you may be the next Supreme Court Justice, or what we're going to, and you did write those things, and that's why I want to bring them up to you.
So, all I can say is that there are a lot of things that I've written, I guess, and there are even more things I'm sad to have written, that, uh...
I may agree with some of the things I've written, but I'm not exactly sure.
- I just wanna know, is it safe to say that you retract saying that conspiracy theorists should be banned or taxed for having an opinion online?
Is it safe to say that?
I don't remember the article very well, so...
I hope I didn't say either of those things.
You did, and it's written.
Do you retract them?
I'm focused on my job.
So you're not retracting that.
Do you still believe that?
Do you still believe that people should have freedom of speech?
I'm happy to talk about this, by the way.
I can go on the record.
He's the man who wrote about it.
So Cass, do you still believe in the Joseph Goebbels approach?
Please don't.
I'm asking a question.
I know, I know, but you're... I'm asking a question.
You know, you know... It's the job of a journalist to ask questions.
You want me to get my books?
Okay, go get your books then.
Which is more... I'm sorry, I've got to ask him again.
I have to.
I kind of have to.
We're not trying to.
So, Cash, you don't...
Do you repudiate those statements or not, Cash?
Cass, do you still stand by them?
And why do you think conspiracy theories are so dangerous?
It's a very serious question.
I mean, we're talking about undermining freedom of speech and critical thinking, about questioning the government.
We just want to know your opinion, and you don't seem like you want to retract those statements, but they're very serious.
They're very similar to Joseph Goebbels.
That's what people compared you to, sir?
Thank you, sir.
Have a good day.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
But since Cass Sunstein doesn't seem to remember what he wrote in his paper, Conspiracy Theories, with one Adrian Vermeule from Harvard, while Cass Sunstein was at University of Chicago, we'll read you just a couple of those quotes.
The term infiltration appears more than 14 times in this paper.
He says, consider, for example, that beliefs that prolonged exposure to sunlight is actually healthy and that climate change is not occurring or likely to occur are examples of conspiracy theories that are not only false but potentially dangerous.
He also says on page 15, we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories Cognitive infiltration of extremist groups whereby government agents or their allies will undermine the crippled epistemology of these conspiracy theorists and further recommends that governments might undertake legal tactics for infiltrating these groups and breaking them up from within on the internet in the real sphere of life and on and on.
We turn now to a report that Max Cabrera from our office did on Hugo Chavez.
You see, there's bad people on the right, on the left, all these extremist dictator groups, whether they're socialist, fascist, corporate-driven, or what have you, are all very corrupt, and this just goes to show right here on Mayday.
This is Max Cabrera, reporting for InfoWars Nightly News.
In recent days, doubts have intensified whether Hugo Chavez, who is fighting an undisclosed type of cancer, will be able to run against Enrique Capriles, the candidate of a United opposition.
But is Chavez health the real concern, or is it being used to distract the people from the declarations of a former general and Supreme Court magistrate who is hiding out in the U.S.?
His name?
Eladio Aponte.
In an interview broadcast on Miami Channel Television, Soy TV, the former judge said that high-profile criminal cases were manipulated by top-ranking Venezuelan officials, including Mr. the former judge said that high-profile criminal cases were manipulated by top-ranking Venezuelan officials, including One case involved a military lieutenant who had been arrested after storing 2,262 kilos of cocaine on an army base.
Mr. Aponte said in the Soy TV interview that all Venezuelan military officers, including Defense Minister Henry Rangel Silva, Military Intelligence Chief General Hugo Carvajal, and military aid to President Chavez, called him to pressure him to release the officer.
After an injunction given for this case, the investigation stopped, according to Aponte.
They just asked for favors that I comply with and won't be the judge that refused to cooperate.
They were dismissed, Aponte said.
Mr. Aponte also said that Mr. Chavez himself called him to make sure that a number of Colombian peasants alleged to be paramilitary fighters in 2004 were found guilty of planning to assassinate Mr. Chavez.
Mr. Chavez pardoned the man three years later.
When asked whether there were political prisoners in Venezuela, something Chavez has previously denied, Aponte said yes.
There are people they ordered not to be released.
In a nutshell, we had to accept the fact that they were not to be released, so the justice system turned its back to them.
Aponte was dismissed from his post by Venezuela's National Assembly on March 20 over accusations that he had ties to a drug suspect.
And after the declarations were given, Venezuela's Justice Minister, Tarek al-Assami, accused Aponte of receiving money from drug traffickers and notified about the dismantle of a money laundering ring with operations involving as much as $10 million in Venezuela.
According to Aponte, justice is nothing.
Justice is a ball of putty because it can be mauled for or against.
Mr. Aponte said on the broadcast, I don't think the separation of power exists.
It happened every week.
On Friday mornings, Venezuela's top prosecutors, the justice minister, the solicitor general, assorted Supreme Court justices.
Police chief and top officials will meet in the Vice President's office to review politically sensitive court cases and decide how they should be handled.
In each instance, the Vice President had the last word.
Dismissal, acquittal, or conviction.
Aponte mentioned that his position in the Supreme Court was given due to his ability of following government guidelines.
Aponte mentioned that his position in the Supreme Court was given due to his ability of following the guidelines from the government, even though when these guidelines were going against the Constitution.
This is an example of how the justice system can be manipulated, leaving no recourse for the victim.
This was Max Cabrera reporting for Infowars Nightly News.
And that's just one angle of the larger corruption you get anytime there's an amassing of power.
Just because Western imperialism is totally corrupt doesn't mean the alternatives on the left are any better.
I mean, just look at what's happened to Latin America over the past 30, 40 years.
You've had revolutions, coups, oustings, manipulations of votes in almost every country.
You've had dictators on the left.
And the right, they all serve the greater pedestals of power, any kind of concentrated system.
One antidote to that corruption of power is in Ron Paul.
Without further ado, we take you in full to his speech from last Thursday, March 26, right here in Austin, Texas.
Thanks for watching the InfoWars Nightly News.
Don't forget to subscribe at PrisonPlanet.tv.
Have you been to InfoWarsShop.com lately?
Express your hatred with these brand new InfoWars t-shirts.
Say it loud with the InfoWars Bullhorn shirt.
Or educate the sheeple with the Bill of Rights shirt.
Grope the public's mind with the TSA shirt.
And with this shirt, you can let the dark side know of the Rebel Alliance's power.
All available at InfoWarsShop.com.
Sick of the globalist eugenicist control freaks adding poison to your water and laughing as you get sick and die?
Start purifying your water with ProPure.
My friends, I've done a lot of research, and the best gravity filter out there bar none is ProPure, and it's available discounted at InfoWars.com.
Its filters are silver and pregnant to prevent bacterial growth.
There's no priming required.
It's NSF-42 certified.
Optional fluoride filters can reduce fluoride up to 95%.
Easy to set up and use.
Doesn't require electricity.
Purify water from lakes, streams, ponds, and wells.
This filter system leaves in beneficial minerals, which is key.
Save money by not buying bottled water and avoid BPA that leaches from the plastic.
ProPure is the best gravity-fed filter out there.
It's what my family uses.
Infowars.com already has the lowest price on ProPure, but if you add the promo code WATER at checkout, you get an additional 10% off at Infowars.com.
You can also call to order.
888-253-3139.
These campaign events are a little bit different, too, because earlier on I saw something.
I said, I'll bet that never shows up in another candidate.
Somebody holds up a sign and says, raw milk.
There we go.
Wow.
Thank God.
And also, how many other candidates are getting a chance at the badge?
Those are nice slogans, but the real issue is our liberty, and we're bound and determined to get our liberties back again!
And it is rather discouraging.
In Washington, not much seems to be happening.
But where the real encouragement is, is when you leave Washington, come out, get on the campaign trail, and meet people like you.
That uplifts me, and thank you very much for being with us.
I'm asked so often, why do young people seem to be interested?
Well, why shouldn't young people be interested in their own freedom?
One thing that's happened in the last four years is it's not so much that people have completely given up on the idea that the government's supposed to take care of everybody else.
I don't know where they're going to get everything if everybody's being taken care of by somebody else.
But I think what's happened in the last four years, a lot of people woke up and realized that it doesn't work anymore.
How long can a housing bubble last?
Eventually it bursts and the people who were supposed to help lose their houses.
So people have awakened and said, look, this system isn't working very well.
This monetary system doesn't work.
This entitlement system enriches the rich and not the poor.
And also, we have a foreign policy that is deeply flawed, and most people in this country now, about a large majority, says it's time to come home!
There is no doubt that there are changes coming, and there's a big difference in these last four years.
But Washington is always the last ones to wake up.
You know, where I go, we get the large crowds, and they're very concerned, of course, about the attack on personal liberties.
If you mention just the National Defense Authorization Act, most people know exactly what I'm talking about!
And then, of course, we've been talking a lot about the bill that they want to use to regulate the Internet.
The CISPA is the bill we're working on right now.
Now, we were able to stop, you know, the Stop Online Piracy Act because people rallied.
But guess what?
The bad news is our noise and our voices weren't quite loud enough because they went in the House today and overwhelmingly passed that new bill called CISPA.
Which means that that's just one more bill we're going to have to repeal whenever we get the chance.
Along with the Patriot Act, of course.
Thank you.
First, the National Defense Authorization Act, that's an atrocious piece of legislation.
That's the one that legalizes, with concurrence with the Congress, for the U.S.
military to arrest American suspect, American citizens that are only suspect, and put them in, arrested by the military, and put them in prison and no attorney authorized in secrecy.
That bill should be very high on the list for repeal as well.
A couple of weeks ago, the president renewed a bill called the Defense Production Act, which has been sitting around for a long time.
And it means that in a time of national emergency, of war going on, the President has the authority, of course, to declare, you know, a total ownership of all businesses and all financial institutions.
What the President did, by executive order, he added the phrase, during peacetime as well.
Well, you say, is that the law of the land?
Well, not technically.
If we had a good court system, it would be unconstitutional.
How can the president legislate like that?
Only the Congress can legislate.
And I am of the firm conviction that a constitutional president, if in charge, even though the executive orders would be very limited to those functions which were expressly authorized by the Constitution, I am convinced that it would be proper to be a constitutional president to use the executive order to repeal all other I am convinced that it would be proper to be a constitutional president
So we have a long way to go.
The attack on civil liberties has been rather severe because it is the principle of liberty you have to deal with.
So if you're dealing with your personal lives and how you want to run your life, your ownership of your own lives, as well as your economic liberty and the foreign policy and monetary policy, It really boils down to the principle of what Jefferson started off with.
our inalienable rights, our rights to our life and our liberty and the right to pursue our happiness and it's being God-given, given to us not by our government but by our Creator.
So under those circumstances, of course, the Founders made a very serious attempt to try to prevent us from drifting back into tyranny.
A good document, probably one of the best, but the last hundred years, we as American citizens have been very careless.
But that's what this revolution is all about, is to revive the true spirit of liberty and reverse the trends of the past hundred years, change our foreign policy, change our monetary policy, and change the spending habits and the deficits that have run us into this horrendous financial crisis. and change the spending habits and the deficits that have
This can be done simply by sending only people to Washington who are certified and capable of reading the Constitution. - And then you believe them when they take the oath of office.
Because we got into this trouble because of the careless interpretation of the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the not reading and caring about Article 1, Section A, not caring about the 9th and 10th Amendment.
It wouldn't be that difficult.
We don't have to invent anything new.
We just need men and women of integrity that will take their oath of office seriously.
If we got into this mess by not following the law book, all we need is to follow the law book.
the Constitution will get out of this mess.
Since World War II, we have been in numerous wars, almost constant wars.
Not one single war has been declared since World War II.
So simply, why don't we follow the law and say that the people, through their representatives in Congress, are the only ones allowed to declare war.
And if we had that provision, had that been followed, we would have fought no war since World War II.
Think how much wealthier this country would be.
So much less debt and destruction we would have had.
Even if you took just the past ten years, our national debt has been pushed up four trillion dollars because of all the wars going on in the Middle East.
And what are the politicians talking about today?
Democrats and Republicans.
They're overly anxious to start the next one, going to Syria and going to Iran.
I say, no more wars!
Get out of the war and come home!
It's a moral issue, it's a constitutional issue, but you know, it's also an economic issue because great it's a constitutional issue, but you know, it's also an economic issue because great empires, great nations always Fortunately, we didn't have to have a nuclear exchange with the Soviets.
They went broke before we did.
And they had to go home and their system fell apart.
I was in the military in the 1960s for five years.
I was drafted during the Cuban crisis.
And believe me, if we can stand up to the Soviets who had 30,000 nuclear weapons, don't you think we could stand up and not be intimidated and act so frightened by a country that has no nuclear weapons?
And maybe we'll never get a nuclear weapons and we want to go to war against a country like that?
It makes no sense at all!
The founders of this country were very definite on how we should deal with other nations.
We should be friends and trade with all nations, willing to be friends and willing to trade, and we would be less likely to fight with them.
A good suggestion would be, the Cold War is over, why don't we talk and trade with Cuba?
Other countries are doing it.
We're doing it with China now, and they've sort of wised up of the whole thing.
We're in debt.
We owe it to China.
China saves their money.
We're over there wasting lives and wasting monies throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Guess what?
China's taking our dollars that they earn from us, and they're investing them over there in minerals and natural resources and oil.
So I would say that it would be a much better way How about the old-fashioned capital way of being a productive nation and let people invest freely and cooperatively rather than assuming a mercantilistic attitude that we have to go over and invade countries to protect our oil.
Makes no sense.
The civil liberties, for various reasons, have been attacked.
The attack has been much worse since 9-11.
Mainly, I believe, because of the erroneous analysis of 9-11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
We didn't need to invade Iraq.
The Quaker Act had been floating around Washington for a long time.
They tried to pass it.
They never could get a consensus.
But it was the very first bill that they pushed right after 9-11.
Within weeks, it was passed.
If they had called that bill Repeal the Fourth Amendment Act, maybe it wouldn't have been passed so easily.
So when we repeal that bill, we won't call it repeal the Patriot Act.
We're going to say repeal the -- no, restore the Fourth Amendment Act.
Unfortunately, we have not taken the advice of the founders nor looked at our Constitution because in a republic, the government is supposed to be open.
The people are supposed to have their privacy.
The government is supposed to, if anything, protect our privacy.
Today, as this legislation continues to be passed, and they're attacking now the Internet, it seems like they don't care about our privacy, and we can't find out what's going on in the government.
That, of course, is the reason, the real reason why we need to know a lot more about the Federal Reserve System.
I agree.
That's a very good idea.
Let's do that.
I think next year would be a grand year, 100 years old.
We'll celebrate the Federal Reserve Act by repealing the Federal Reserve Act.
And the people who get all the benefits, the military industrial complex, the banks, the big corporations, the people who get the money, the people overseas who get the money and get the bailouts.
I say, no, no, we can't do that.
But what about the people who suffer the consequences?
What about the people who didn't get the bailouts?
What about that?
The middle class suffers the most when you destroy a currency.
Whether it's ongoing in this country, whether it was in Mexico in the past, or Central America, or Zimbabwe, or Germany, it's the middle class that suffers the consequences.
The natural consequence of destruction of currency means there's a transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy.
So this is what's going on.
This is why there is anger.
This is why they don't even pretend to balance the budget.
Why they don't even bring up budget resolutions.
Because they don't have an answer and there's no money in the Treasury.
That is the reason.
So what we have to deal with...
Is where does wealth come from?
Does it come from the government?
No, the government gets in the way.
that wealth comes from productive individuals when they have the ability to produce and get the government out of the way, and you can be rewarded for your efforts.
The Federal Reserve has served the interests of the very wealthy.
You could not have runaway entitlement spending, and you could not have the wars fought if you didn't inflate and destroy the currency.
So these are events that are coming about.
We have not ever talked about them before in a presidential campaign.
And the issue is big government or Individual liberty.
And it is the issue of liberty that can bring us together.
Not so much that we would agree on how to use our liberty, but precisely because people are different.
People want to use their liberties in different way, but it is not confrontational if we all get together and say, we want to be free people, we want to run our lives as we choose, our lifestyle should be our own decision, our money that we earn should be our own, and the government should buy our life.
And if we have the freedom today, most people understand this, we have the freedom of picking our own religion, and there's many different religions, and we can pick no religion if we don't want to, and we don't feel intimidated, and we don't have to endorse what people do and pick.
Same way with our intellectual liberties.
We're allowed to read the books we want, even very dangerous philosophies that can do damage to us.
We're allowed to read and study.
But why is it Why is it if we protect intellectual and religious liberty, why can't we protect the liberty of you to put into your bodies whatever you choose?
When we were having a vote on the high floor once on this subject, they were voting to take away more of your personal liberties, and I asked a member sitting next to me, "Why are you doing that?" He says, the people are too stupid.
They don't know how to take care of themselves.
But tell you what, if we ever go and accept fully this notion that the government can protect us against ourselves, there is no liberty left.
And this is the reason it has to be up to the individual.
Does that mean that each and every one of us will make the right decision?
No.
Some people are going to make mistakes.
But you have to assume responsibility for those mistakes.
But what happens if you defer?
What happens if you defer to the politician and the bureaucrats?
They make a mistake.
We all suffer the consequence.
But it's this idea that if you legalize freedom that you endorse what people do, and that's absolutely not the truth.
Because people will use things differently and do things in different manners.
The idea is that we as individuals make all our own decisions.
We should decide what we smoke, drink, or whatever we do.
So for me, even as a physician and knowledgeable enough to know that there are some benefits from raw milk, that isn't the issue for me as a politician.
The issue, should you not have the right to make your own decision if you want to drink raw milk or not?
Now, others say, well, that's okay to a point, but we have to make sure that nobody ever uses any drugs.
I said, you mean alcohol?
Oh, no, we don't mean that.
We're talking about those illegal bad things.
And then I said, well, guess where most of the addiction is?
Is it on the illegal drugs?
No, most of the addiction is on the prescription drugs.
That's where the real problem is.
But drugs and making our own decision is risky.
There are some dangers to that.
But the greatest danger in the war on drugs has been the war on drugs much more dangerous than the drugs themselves.
Because there have been laws in the books, and rather recent, just since the 1937 or '38, they had the first laws against marijuana.
So even though, even through World War II, we were coaxing and asking people to raise hemp.
And the founders all had hemp farms.
And yet today, if you go out and start raising hemp and making industrial hemp, they say, oh no, you can't do that because it sort of looks like marijuana.
So we'll chase all those jobs up to Canada, then we can buy the products from Canada because they can raise him.
But this is the absurdity of it all.
And what we have to think about is restoration of personal responsibility and personal decision-making, and that's what freedom is all about.
But it brings up the question about if you're going to have some regulations, who should do it?
Should it be a national government or should it be a local government?
Well, my personal opinion where the regulations come from, you the individual.
You, your family, teaching your kids, your community, your church or whatever to teach you values.
That's where the real regulations should come from.
But today, there are some states now that said that sick people, it is now known, can't be helped with marijuana.
California and other states.
So, what does our president do?
His promise to lighten up on those law enforcement.
He's enforcing those laws worse than ever!
And it's an interesting way to bring up the issue of states' rights.
Some people like to paint the notion of states' rights as being something bad.
But conservatives talk about states' rights.
Sometimes they follow them, sometimes they don't.
But liberals should understand, well, maybe it should be the state prerogative.
of what they should do in how this should be administered.
This is essentially what happens with alcohol.
The national prohibition of alcohol was a disaster.
And we woke up and finally said, no, it's not that alcohol isn't dangerous.
Matter of fact, I think most people in this country know that alcohol is many, many fold more dangerous than marijuana.
And of course, the real danger comes from, well, it's tremendously expensive.
Our national debt was added to by $3 trillion in the last 30 years because of the drug laws.
We put people in prison for life, three times arrested for non-violent crimes, and they're kept for life.
At the same time, We find, you know, lacks in law enforcement when it comes to rapists and murderers.
So it makes no sense.
We have 5% of the world population.
We have 25% of the world prisoners.
And my suggestion to you is that I do not believe that the American people are that much worse than other people.
I say we have way too many laws on the books.
Of course, along with the National Defense Authorization Act on January 1st, there were 40,000 new laws placed on there were 40,000 new laws placed on our books.
Now, what I would like to be is the first president to get rid of 40,000 useless laws.
President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump! President Trump!
After the Constitutional Convention, Franklin was asked, what have they given us?
And his remark was, we have given you a republic if you can keep it, which is a major task, because if we don't change our way, if our revolution is not successful, we're going to lose it.
But they had a high disregard for pure democracy, not the democratic process of electing leaders, But the process of letting the majority dictate against the minority.
And they consider that a danger.
But I think we're at that point now.
We believe that if you get that 51%, they can undermine the rights of the individuals.
The purpose of a republic is to protect the rights of all individuals and not to protect it.
And that would be one of the rare, limited functions of the federal government.
But their reason That they didn't like democracy.
They said eventually, when you get a pure democracy, it tends to waste.
And when you think about the waste in this country, because there's always those in power and can manipulate and maneuver and get the contracts and all the things that go on behind in the Federal Reserve.
It wastes and also consumes wealth.
We're consuming wealth now.
We're not producing wealth.
We haven't had any significant new jobs in the last 10 years.
And we've had 30-some million new people in this country.
So we're wasting and we're consuming.
And their prediction at the time was if you allow that to happen, you will self-destruct.
Now, the Soviet system self-destructed.
It was predictable because that type of system isn't functionable.
But our system isn't functionable either.
It's not as ruthless as communism, but in a way it is wasteful and it consumes.
It's built on debt.
It's built on paper money and the powerful special interests.
And it's becoming known that the The groups are lining up, you know, the 99 and 1 and we gotta tax the rich and this sort of thing.
Now I'm not for taxing the rich if they honestly earn their living.
That's okay.
But I'm for dealing with those individuals, and that's a large number of the very, very wealthy making the billions because they get special treatment, either from the contracts or the special interest in the bailouts.
That's a different system, and that is causing resentment.
And this is the reason that we're more or less at an impasse in Washington, D.C., because there was a lot of compromise.
They always argue that we have to have compromise and work together.
When we were very wealthy and had money in the bank, the compromise was easy.
Conservatives and liberals said, we'll vote for your package, I'll vote for your package, and they would pass endlessly spending money.
But it isn't there anymore.
In the last four years, that's why this is different.
We realize the Treasury is empty, the productivity is down, And we have to do something about it.
That means, to produce, you can't have the government in the way.
What you have to have is a clear understanding of property rights.
You have to have a clear understanding of monetary policy.
Not fiat money, but gold and silver as legal tender.
You have to have a government that will support and enforce contracts, not violate contracts on purpose.
The contract is very important.
So it's not like there wouldn't be regulations in a free market, but they would be tough.
They talk about, well, there was lack of regulation, that's why we had the financial crisis.
But that isn't true.
We had the wrong kind of regulations that weren't working and it would have been much easier to go through bankruptcy and punish the people who overextended themselves rather than buying the bad debt and dumping it on the American people behind the scenes.
See, the founders had it together as one package, but in the last hundred years we have divided this.
Some people defended civil liberties a little bit better than the others.
Some people defended economic liberty a little bit better.
But it's all one, but you have to understand liberty comes to you as an individual.
It's important to you as an individual.
You have a right to your life, to your own lifestyle, and you ought to have a right to your money as well.
I'm convinced a revolution is going on.
It is an intellectual revolution.
It has been said that probably a hundred years before our own original revolution, that the ideas were being studied and understood by a minority of people.
It wasn't 50, 60, 70 percent who understood the issue, but there was that irate, tireless minority that agitated and kept setting the brush fires of liberty in the minds of men.
Also, the reversal from what happened from 100 years ago has started 10, 20, even 30 years ago.
People who have been writing about Austrian free market economics, writing about the Federal Reserve System, and writing about and trying to get people to understand why a non-interventionist foreign policy makes more sense than being the policeman of the world.
Peace!
Now!
Peace!
Now!
Peace!
Now!
Thank you!
Yeah.
And peace will bring you prosperity as well, let me tell you.
In a revolution, though, you have to be high-spirited.
You have to really strive for what seems to be impossible.
As I describe Washington, it seems like an impossible situation.
But we have to strive for that.
We have to strive for the ideal.
Not that you think the ideal is going to be on our doorstep tomorrow, but you have to know what the ideal is.
If you start and say, well, that's impossible.
We can't do that.
What we have to do is give them half a package.
Give a half a package of our liberties away?
No, you have to strive for the whole package.
We also have to understand that what we do need is passion and determination, full belief, but also based on reason.
We can't just say that this sounds good, we like it, we want to just do our thing and forget about it.
You have to reason about why it's good.
Why it's not only practical and good, but beneficial to everybody.
You know, in the 1960s, they had a saying that went around, and it said that, you know, if you were 20 and you weren't a liberal, you didn't have a heart.
Now, they also said that if you were 40 and you weren't a conservative, you didn't have a brain.
And what I'd like to suggest is, why can't we have a heart and a brain at the same time?
We call that the spirit of a revolution.
Many times in revolution, in my own personal life, in being engaged in trying to promote causes, people sometimes want to measure, well, how many laws did you get passed in Washington?
Well, 95% of the people in Washington want to pass laws that increases the size of government.
Why do I want to be on the list of saying how many laws I passed in Washington?
Most likely, if we are determined and our numbers keep growing and the enthusiasm there, our success will far exceed the expectations.
And I already see this.
I mean, just in the last four years, the amount of energy that we're seeing, it's just fantastic.
Thomas Paine, who wrote a lot, you know, during the Revolution times, said, the harder the conflict, the greater the glory of the triumph. the harder the conflict, the greater the glory of the So it is going to be difficult, but it is always glorious to have success.
And we will have success.
Am I saying we're going to have success next week, next month, August or November?
In some ways, we will.
We will have success.
And the one thing I am absolutely convinced, that regardless of what happens next week, next month or November, This spirit, the spirit of this revolution is not going away.
It truly confirms the fact that an idea whose time has come cannot be destroyed by armies or governments.
It's too pervasive and we still have tools to spread the message.
I'm always delighted talking on the campuses and talking to the young people.
And I realize what a future you face and the realization that there's a lot of debt out there.
There's a lot of personal debt.
But just think how much could be solved for the country and you personally.
If we just had a sensible economy where you could get a good job!
That was one of our problems.
And that is achievable.
It is achievable by us following through.
Most important thing that we do as individuals wanting to be involved in this movement is to study and understand because you have to have answers.
If you say you want to end the Fed, yeah, we want to end the Fed.
But why?
Why do you want to end the Fed?
And why are they ripping us off?
And why is honesty with honest money a better thing?
You have to have those answers.
You have to also know how to explain to people that what we're talking about is a humanitarian approach.
They claim because we don't want the government taking care of people, and we don't believe in free stuff, because there is no such thing as free stuff.
But if we care about our fellow man and we care about abundance, if we care about the maximum prosperity of the largest middle class, if we do, we have to say we have to defend individual liberty, free markets, and sound money.
They would like to paint this as uncaring and not concerned about our fellow man.
But freedom is the best way to take care of our fellow man.
They do the same thing with foreign policy.
They come along and they don't talk about non-intervention and mining our own business.
They say, oh, you guys are a bunch of isolationists.
You don't want to talk to anybody.
But guess what?
The very people who tell us that we're the isolationists are the ones who are always looking around for another enemy to slay and put on sanctions and start another war.
They're the ones who don't want to trade with Cuba.
We're the ones that think that it's time to engage in the world and to talk to people and trade with people.
So they will try to paint us as uncaring, but...
Let me tell you, people who care will care about liberty.
And this will never translate into an absolute majority, but I am certain that our numbers are growing by leaps and bounds.
These prairie fires of freedom are being spread, and there's nothing but good news out there, precariously so.
Because we don't know exactly.
We may have something happen.
There may be a false flag incident where some ship goes down and you'd be used for the excuse to accelerate the next war.
We have to learn to distinguish war propaganda from the truth.
And in the age of big government, in the age of tyranny, truth can be said that it is treason to be truthful.
But we should not ever go wrong by telling the truth and living up to it and telling ourselves the truth.
We cannot deceive ourselves and say, well, this is all going to go away.
This has gone on for a long time.
People warn us.
But I think it's different.
I think it's more serious than ever before.
I think the debt crisis is the biggest thing the world has ever seen.
Our debt is the biggest ever.
And if we don't change, if we don't grasp hold of this and change the directions, there will be ramifications for it.
Even though it will be touch and go for the reversal, the more of you there are to know and understand what liberty is all about, Why is it that we're deferring so much to the Department of Homeland Security when we have a Second Amendment?
Why do we allow our courts to rule that you can be strip searched by any police officer without any reasonable cause?
And don't you think it's about time we get fed up and change the rules at the airport so that we can act in court?
And also something, an order I would like to cancel is that half a billion rounds of ammunition that the Department of Homeland Security just ordered.
What do they need that for?
Revolution!
So clearly, clearly the challenge is there, the difficulty is there, but it only starts with the acknowledgement that we do have problems.
And we put our head in our sand and say the government's going to take care of us.
The other day there was somebody who interviewed me on TV and they said, well, so and so, why don't you give it to them because it's for free?
I said, what is for free?
The government has nothing for free.
They have to steal it from somebody to give it to somebody else.
And in the process, they undermine the productivity of a society.
And that is what I think is so important, is to strive for freedom, because I think this releases creative energy.
It is a way we strive for excellence and virtue, and we become productive to ourselves, and we can take care of ourselves.
And everybody has that responsibility.
We all have different talents, and we'll do different things.
But I am also convinced that all of us, regardless of our talents and regardless of our monetary reward, I think the sense of satisfaction that we have is not related to the amount of dollars we end up with.
It ends up with the satisfaction that we have taken care of ourselves because there are a lot of people who have a lot of wealth and they aren't all that happy because they don't have this sense of satisfaction.
That sense of satisfaction only can come from a free society that protects your freedom to run your life, be creative, and assume responsibility for you and your family.
This should be the goal.
This is the way to achieve peace and prosperity.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection